Conspiracy Theories Regarding the Presidential Election are

racehorse · Post by **racehorse** » 11-10-2004 11:54 AM

I state again, President Bush WON this election, FAIRLY AND HONESTLY, as most Americans realize!

___________--

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=239735

Conspiracy Theories Abound After Bush Victory
Web Sites, E-mails Conjure Phantom Voters, Invented Malfeasance

By JAKE TAPPER and AVERY MILLER

Nov. 9, 2004 - There were minor voting irregularities on Election Day -- long lines, voting machine breakdowns, shortages of provisional ballots -- but some people are now leveling charges of voter fraud.

Doug Chapin, a nonpartisan election analyst, finds the claims to be baseless. "There were no problems that would lead me to believe that there were stolen elections or widespread fraud," he said.

"There was no overwhelming reason to cast doubt on the outcome of this election," seconded Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, the campaign manager for Al Gore's 2000 campaign. "George Bush got more votes this time."

Nevertheless, many people have devised various theories, including stories of voters in largely Democratic counties in Florida whose votes were changed for Bush, phantom voters in Ohio and exit polls showing John Kerry in the lead that were truer than the final tally. Off the record, many Democratic strategists dismiss such allegations, but they also know such resentment can be channeled for political use in the future.

Those Florida Democrats Who Mysteriously Voted for Bush

Based at least in part on these conspiracy theories, three Democratic congressmen have written a letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

"We are requesting an investigation into all the allegations, of irregularities with respect to the electronic and other voting machines so that people can have confidence in the result of this election, and so that any weaknesses are changed before the next election," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

The congressmen's letter mentions the Web site ustogether.org, which questions why so many counties in Florida that have more registered Democrats than Republicans ended up voting for Bush. The Web site implies someone fixed the results.

In regard to Lafayette County, one of the counties in question, it is true that there are far more registered Democrats in that county than Republicans (3,570 to 570, respectively), and that the county elected Bush in this year's election, but the county elected Bush in the last election, too.

Four years before that, the Republican presidential candidate, Bob Dole, won in Lafayette County as well, as did the first President Bush four years before that.

Rep. Kendrick Meek, the co-chair of the Kerry campaign in Florida, says he knows why Bush was re-elected, and it has nothing to do with fraud.

"We did a good job, but the other side did a better job," he said.

Meek expresses serious concern that the conspiracy theories might create a sense of helplessness among voters and suppress future Democratic turnout.

The counties in question use Optiscan ballots (where voters indicate their choice by marking a circle with a No. 2 pencil), which was not the voting method people worried about before the election since, unlike electronic voting, the ballots leave a paper trail, and unlike punch card ballots, they can be counted and used easily.

"Before the election in many places you saw people questioning the process because they were concerned about the result," said Chapin. "And now there are people looking at the result and using that as a basis to question the process."

Ohio Conspiracy Theories

In the battleground state of Ohio, where conspiracy theories abound, a Web site for Cuyahoga County seemed to show more votes than voters in some precincts.

The county's Web site was confusing -- it lumped several precincts' absentee ballots together and then counted them several times, for each precinct. But those were glitches in vote-reporting -- not vote-counting. The "phantom" voters who mysteriously appeared and voted for Bush in the county -- which voted overwhelmingly for Kerry -- did not exist other than in the imagination of Democrats upset about Kerry's loss.

This afternoon, the Web site that first raised the questions about the Cuyahoga votes took it all back. "OK," wrote the Webmeister at "Americans 4 America," "finally had a chance to figure this out. I apologize for any anxiety that went along with these numbers. It seems that data is useless without knowing how counties arrived at the numbers and this was a particularly tricky process."

Exit Polls as Fact?

Finally, there is the controversy regarding the television networks' exit polls, which seemed early on to indicate a better day for Kerry than the one he actually had.

But as we now all know, the exit polls were off a bit. Regardless, exit polls are not hard data, they are as accurate as polling -- which is sometimes on target, and sometimes not. "If I'm given exit polls and voting results, and I'm [asked] which do I rely on more, I rely on voting results," said Norman Ornstein, a political analyst at the American Enterprise Institute.

Clearly for many people, however, results are not enough. When Mark Twain remarked that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can put on his shoes, it's astounding to think he was speaking decades before the invention of the Internet.

Clayton Sandell contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2004 ABC News Internet Ventures

CindyLouWho · Post by **CindyLouWho** » 11-10-2004 12:08 PM

Yeah, I'm afraid you may be right on this one, Horsie ...

... but a girl can still dream, right?

There are, a kabillion attorney's on this because there were TOO many highly peculiar irregularities. There is just too much circumstantial evidence to let it go without verifying.

I'm sure you also want a fair, accurate count, right?

Would it be enough to change the outcome? (and, ouch this hurts) I doubt it ...

-- the president has the ole standby "plausible deniability" (dang, thats a good one!)

... It goes against my "spirit grain" to say this, but it would be a silver lining for me at a time when I'm having a very hard time finding any silver anywhere, if Rove WAS caught cheating.

(see, now I know how to rack up the karmic debt!)

tiffany · Post by **tiffany** » 11-10-2004 12:18 PM

Would it be enough to change the outcome? (and, ouch this hurts) I doubt it ... -- the president has the ole standby "plausible deniability" (dang, thats a good one!)

I'm not ready to gracefully concede yet. A few more days, or weeks.........will tell more.........then we'll see.

tiffany · Post by **tiffany** » 11-10-2004 12:20 PM

Well possom welcome to the Ship.........new Pirate..........

No Halliburton has it's own fame, maybe we will go with both...

Post by **Linnea** » 11-10-2004 12:21 PM

The entire point is, why should our republic be held hostage to faith-based voting?

One person, one vote - which is counted, in a completely transparent and accountable way.

Efforts to have a certifiable and transparent election in 2004 were stalled in congress by this administration, while contracts were done with corporations who stated they would deliver the election for Bush. For a country that has put a crew on the moon, is it too much to ask that our elections be secure?

http://www.blackboxvoting.org

Contribute...

Burt Gummer · Post by **Burt Gummer** » 11-10-2004 12:50 PM

When an individual tax return is filed the IRS would issue a unique voter registration number. This number is valid *only once* and could be used via paper or the Internet. However, it would be most efficient via the Internet where instant verification could take place. In addition, an individual could *log on* later to verify their vote was indeed cast correctly.

It's very clear that in this day and age a solution can be found. However, what is not clear is if either side really wants to find it...

My 2 cents,
Burt

tiffany · Post by **tiffany** » 11-10-2004 01:09 PM

Burt Gummer wrote: When an individual tax return is filed the IRS would issue a unique voter registration number. This number is valid *only once* and could be used via paper or the Internet. However, it would be most efficient via the Internet where instant verification could take place. In addition, an individual could *log on* later to verify their vote was indeed cast correctly.

It's very clear that in this day and age a solution can be found. However, what is not clear is if either side really wants to find it...

My 2 cents,
Burt

No I think that is a nickels worth...good idea Burt Gummer......

tiffany · Post by **tiffany** » 11-10-2004 01:11 PM

Linnea wrote: The entire point is, why should our republic be held hostage to faith-based voting?

One person, one vote - which is counted, in a completely transparent and accountable way.

Absolutely Linnea, this is the crux of the whole matter in a nut shell.

Why do they think they can tell millions of people who DO NOT agree with their relgious views what they will accept and not accept. Pushing their agenda on these millions. What nerve!

I will not be held hostage and that is where my anger lies. You said it so well Linn, so well indeed!

Post by **Linnea** » 11-10-2004 01:31 PM

Tiffany - by faith-based voting, I was referring merely to the lack of transparency and accountability of the voting process. You know, accept the results on faith alone...

It's a good phrase, for all that!

Post by **Linnea** » 11-10-2004 01:37 PM

And, regarding your other issue here: I agree. This administration is dangerously blurring the separation of church and state. Freedom to practise religion was never intended by the founding fathers (no mothers?!!

) to be religion IN government, but to protect the free expression and practice of religion in the general populace - WITHOUT imposing anyone's religious beliefs on any other, and most especially to NOT have religion influencing government!.

Bush is failing miserably at this, and is, in fact, promoting evangelical government. This I see as one of the most problematic elements of his misguided policy, and one that is extremely dangerous for this country. I can see no defense of it.

tiffany · Post by **tiffany** » 11-10-2004 01:40 PM

Oops sorry Linn I read it wrong...heheh but still mad about it.

But that too! So many think that the election went just great. They are now back to work, paying bills doing their own thing without another thought to what really happened this election.

Yes blind faith indeed.

Ninerism · Post by **Ninerism** » 11-10-2004 01:54 PM

Linnea wrote: Tiffany - by faith-based voting, I was referring merely to the lack of transparency and accountability of the voting process. You know, accept the results on faith alone...

It's a good phrase, for all that!

Linnea: FAITH-BASED VOTING! Good call and good way to define it!
Ninerism

seattlegal · Post by **seattlegal** » 11-10-2004 02:16 PM

Linnea wrote: Tiffany - by faith-based voting, I was referring merely to the lack of transparency and accountability of the voting process. You know, accept the results on faith alone...

It's a good phrase, for all that!

Agreed!

The government needs to accountable to the people. If we do not remain vigilant regarding that, we endanger our freedom. It's good to be a "Doubting Thomas."

CindyLouWho · Post by **CindyLouWho** » 11-10-2004 02:29 PM

Ninerism wrote: Linnea: FAITH-BASED VOTING! Good call and good way to define it!
Ninerism

Oh, true!! It's a really good definition! Took you explaning it for me to catch on, but YES, good one ... and a double-entendre to boot!

For of our advanced technology ... why do I feel more like we just voted in a third world country??

Corvid · Post by **Corvid** » 11-10-2004 02:57 PM

I state again, President Bush WON this election, FAIRLY AND HONESTLY, as most Americans realize!

RaceHorse,

Are you as sure of this statement as you were sure that Iraq had WMDs?

Are you as sure of this statment as you were sure that Iraq was seeking yellow cake from Niger?

Are you as sure of this statment as you were sure that 9/11 was gawd's punishment for gay people?

Are you as sure of this statment as you were sure as you were sure that saddam was behind 9/11?

Are you as sure of this statment as you were sure that Iraq could hit us in 45 minutes with anthrax laden MODEL AIRPLANES?

Are you as sure of this statment as you were sure that lil blowmonkey did EVERYTHING he could do against terrorism prior to 9/11?

Are you as sure of this statment as you were sure that John McCain has an illegitimate black baby?

Are you as sure of this statment as you were sure that the lil blowmonkey served with heroism and honor in a time of war?

Are you as sure of this statment as you were sure that the slaughter of 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq is MORAL ?

If you are sure of this statement, then next time you go to your bank to transfer what you may hold so dear.... DO NOT ASK FOR A RECIEPT.

Just tell the bank that you trust them..........

Hell, even when you buy a coke at mcdonald's..... you get a reciept.

But not for your vote?